§

E. I. du Pont & Co.

301 N.L.R.B. 155 (N.L.R.B. 1991)
E. I. du Pont & Co.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Fibreboard Corp. v. Labor Board

    379 U.S. 203 (1964)   Cited 734 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "contracting out" of work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the NLRA

  2. Ford Motor Co. (Chicago Stamping Plant) v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    441 U.S. 488 (1979)   Cited 290 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that proposal concerning in-plant cafeteria prices was within duty to bargain despite fact that prices were set by third-party supplier rather than employer

  3. Detroit Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    440 U.S. 301 (1979)   Cited 228 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a union's request for employee aptitude tests was relevant to its claim, but employer's interest in preserving confidentiality was also legitimate, and disclosing the information only upon the employee's written consent was a reasonable accommodation

  4. Labor Board v. Borg-Warner Corp.

    356 U.S. 342 (1958)   Cited 296 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding employer's insistence on a ballot clause was an unfair labor practice under § 8 because it was a non-mandatory subject of bargaining and it "substantially modifies the collective-bargaining system provided for in the statute by weakening the independence of the 'representative' chosen by the employees. It enables the employer, in effect, to deal with its employees rather than with their statutory representative."

  5. American Federation of Television & Radio Artists v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    395 F.2d 622 (D.C. Cir. 1968)   Cited 103 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Applying Taft

  6. Timken Roller Bearing Company v. N.L.R.B

    325 F.2d 746 (6th Cir. 1963)   Cited 56 times
    In Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. NLRB, 325 F.2d 746 (6th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 971, 84 S.Ct. 1135, 12 L.Ed.2d 85 (1964), the court considered a union request for information concerning five grievances that awaited hearings before a chosen arbitrator.

  7. N.L.R.B. v. Wallkill Valley General Hosp

    866 F.2d 632 (3d Cir. 1989)   Cited 13 times
    Noting that the Board has “observed that there is a clear distinction between union membership and majority support for collective bargaining representatives”